There are so many children around, and it is the way of the world for millennia to seize upon these handy little creatures — they're everywhere! — and use them to do the work adults want done. I'm not saying that's what's already happened with the post-Parkland protesters, just that the kid-gloves treatment of these vocal participants in the public dialogue sends a message to conniving adults that there's a special benefit to using children.
There are consequences.
I'm thinking of the use of minors in criminal activities, which is facilitated by the benevolence of the juvenile court system. The use of children in drug commerce produced a backlash:
During the early 1990s, under a set of faulty assumptions about a coming generation of “super-predators,”* 40 states passed legislation to send even more juveniles into the adult courts for a growing array of offenses and with fewer procedural protections....By the way, I was robbed once in my life. It was in Italy, by children who were, obviously, used by adults to ply the old pickpocketing trade. People near me caught the children, and the police came. There was much chatter in the police office, and then the children were let go. I received an explanation in English: "They're children!" But everyone knew that children were used (abused) precisely because the police would let them go.
This tough-on-crime era left in its wake state laws that still permit or even require drug charges to be contested in adult courts. Scant data exist to track its frequency, but fully 46 states and the District of Columbia permit juveniles to be tried as adults on drug charges. Only Connecticut, Kansas, Massachusetts, and New Mexico do not....
Meanwhile: "Noor Salman, the widow of the man who gunned down dozens of people at the Pulse nightclub two years ago, was found not guilty by a federal jury on Friday of helping her husband carry out a terrorist attack in the name of the Islamic State" (NYT). Message: Use your women, because their role will not be taken seriously.
So what can we say — as we debate public issues — about the children (and the women)? How much, if at all, can they be criticized? And what is their fate if we treat them as innocents, tiny oracles of emotional meaning? Meaning well and thinking of yourself as a fount of empathy is not enough to keep them on a straight path of goodness and not enough to protect other decent enough people from harm.
_____________
* Here's Hillary Clinton trying to detach herself from her own "super-predators" statement, from 1994, which had become politically inconvenient in 2016:
२८१ टिप्पण्या:
281 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»Juveniles are commonly used in the drug trade for that very reason.
In the drug trade, having underage persons do the dirty work of transport and distribution, this is called employing mules. Or so I'm told.
-sw
Ah, mockturtle beat me to it!
-sw
Hogg needs a spankin'
"Ah, mockturtle beat me to it!"
Ahem. The point is made in the post!
Ah, Althouse beat me to it!
Can I get credit for the 'mule' part?
-sw
"I enjoy working with children. They're much more nimble, and no one suspects them." -- Dr. Bert Fegg
Children are easy to brainwash and indoctrinate too. Child soldiers are very common in Africa for this reason.
The culture-wide flight from that nasty personal responsibility imperative shows up in all kinds of disgusting ways; child abuse is simply a particularly foul version of it. Perhaps Inga, Ritmo, and the like can explain why the Left does this much more frequently and instinctively than the rest of us.
That meshes well with the women on the left asking for equality but then complaining when they are treated the same as men.
The Aurora theater shooter was spared the death penalty by one liberal moron who thinks it's harsh to demand retribution on mass murderers.
"Beasts of no Nation", Netflix
Best thing Netflix ever made, the most honest and the most terrible.
The government brings weak cases to show they are being tough
Everyone knows that common sense is that his wife knew about attack and did nothing
Hopefully she is deported nonetheless
"How much, if at all, can they be criticized?" Not much, as long as progs dominate most institutions and women constitute the MSM audience.
"And what is their fate if we treat them as innocents, tiny oracles of emotional meaning?" They will just think of themselves as innocents, large oracles of emotional meaning, you know, like now. See #MeToo, for example.
Hillary-Hogg 2020. Because whiny entitled female power-monger who refuses to go away and leftwing fascist blame-shifting gun confiscating free speech stomping bullyboy.
I think we should challenge David Hogg to fix the environment at Parkland which led a 19 year old former student to want to shoot other students - any other student he saw. He would have shot David Hogg. Why? Surely David can tell us what was wrong at Parkland and how to fix it. (How to fix it other than by manipulating statistics, I mean.) Parkland is the only social situation this boy has ever been in. If he doesn't know how to fix that, he doesn't know anything.
In short, before we listen to David Hogg on how fix America, why don't we have a little test case where Brave Leader Hogg tells us how to fix Parkland? And then does it? Would that be revolutionary? You bet. So far he and his fellow Democrats have only said: change the statistics so that they show no problems at Parkland; train the police to do nothing if there is violence at Parkland; take away guns from everybody in America so that ignoring violence and bullying at Parkland doesn't lead to shooting at Parkland. But surely David Hogg could go in there and fix it all. It's just a shame David Hogg didn't fix Parkland in the three years he was there before the shooting. But, anyhow, after Parkland is fixed, he can go on and fix the other schools in Florida. Then ... but I think we all know David Hogg isn't going to fix anything or do anything except talk wherever there's an audience for him.
I am amazed at how much attention, energy, and emotion is focused on David Hogg when it is obvious that he is just a front.
Find out who is using him. Figure out what their vulnerabilities are (publicity? funding? legal issues) and exploit them.
As an example, WHO is keeping David out of school? Why are they immune from both legal and social sanctions for enabling truancy? Who provides support for this obviously astroturfed movement? Which politicians can be tied to this movement, and how can these ties be made public (Not many politicians want to be associated with a gun grab, especially in an election year) Who provides the funding and where do they get THEIR money? Any sponsors who might be leery about being outed?
MSM isn't going to dig into this, of course.
What's wrong with criticizing children? I've spent the last twenty years criticizing my son, hopefully only when it was warranted.
Noor Salman's acquittal may have less to do with the fact that she's a woman, and more to do with the fact that the FBI likely violated the Brady Rule and the broader citizenry is getting sick of their bullshit.
How much, if at all, can they be criticized?
They can and should be criticized just like everyone else. People who argue differently should be recognized as shills and criticized even more.
Oh, and isn't it interesting how they picked their fronts for this?
Lily white children. No black children. Emma is nominally hispanic, but you couldn't tell by looking at her.
Whoever is behind this movement knows what REALLY plays with their base.
Somehow the timid adults in the room cannot understand how seeing your fellow students gunned down by an AR-15 can make one fearless and willing to stand up to all the snark of Fox, the NRA and conservative critics.Remember he is almost eighteen years old-- eligible to join the service, vote, buy guns and have his own opinion.
MSM isn't going to dig into this, of course.
Nor should anyone since it's a distraction. His positions are subject to the same criticisms as an adults, if he doesn't like that he can stop speaking publicly until he's ready to deal with it.
Anyone using the "criticizing a child" defense to protect his message should be publicly criticized as a propagandist and have their own credibility suffer as a result.
I'll give Hillary one. "Super predators" was not racist dog whistle, it was scary phrasing to get people to feel like she will protect them.
The racist is the dude (is that Don Lemon?) asking Hillary a stupid PC word-crime question.
So tired.
Innocent children is a woman thing.
Guys can remember being children.
Roche - Hogg is blame shifting the NRA and other law abiding citizens and screaming at them that they are "fucking pathetic" and "HAVE BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS" for not agreeing with him to let the government grab their guns. No discussion on the shooter himself, if he was a member of the NRA, (NO, not) and no discussion on how local law enforcement who knew the shooter was a problem and DID NOTHING. 30+ times. Just a leftwing bullyboy shut down of debate.
"What's wrong with criticizing children?"
Using children as political sock puppets is repugnant. The "March for our Lives" protest was lavishly funded and organized by Michael Bloomberg anti-gun front organizations and self-styled "progressive" groups, who were very careful to stay in the background and make it look like this was some spontaneous uprising of children. The studied incuriosity of the media about who was running things was disgusting.
Children ought to be allowed to have a childhood. It's bad enough that some fatherless delinquent killed school children. For grownups to exploit the survivors immediately after the shootings was ugly -- adults using children as sock puppets to mask their political gestures.
Leave the kids alone! It's way past time to call out the adults who groom and manipulate them, to blame and shame them.
UCLA should bounce a kid who earned his slot the hard way and give it to Hogg.
@Althouse -- Your experience in Italy reminded me of my own. Children of what I'll call a criminal element of society were badly mistreated by their parents. As you saw, some were taught to be pickpockets, others petty burglars, still others were employed as beggars. The beggars had the worst lot. Often their limbs had been intentionally broken and set into grotesque forms -- all to better suite the the children to their trade.
It was an unspeakable evil, one that had been practiced for hundreds of years. Yet, short of taking the kids from their parents at birth and sterilizing the adults, how can the practice be eradicated? It's not the child beggar's fault that his parents crippled him for life! He'll be beaten if he doesn't bring home 'enough', shouldn't you help him by tossing him some change? Yet, if you do, you're supporting this evil practice -- which he'll perpetuate as an adult with his own kids.
Dickens actually blew the lid off child exploitation some time before the Althouse post. In recent times, Fagin of the Oliver Twist novel has generally been portrayed in a rather sympathetic fashion. Greedy, but for all that kindly and caring for the children in his charge. Mr. Bumble is generally depicted as the true villain. It's time for Fagin's Me Too moment. Any kindness he shows the children is just a ploy to better manipulate them..I think such an interpretation would probably be closer to the historical personage on whom Dickens based his tale....It's dear to Hollywood's heart to portray an establishment figure like Mr. Bumble as the villain and an outsider like Fagin as the one who truly understands and cares for the kids. In actual fact, although there's nothing much to root for in either character, it's the moral instructions of Fagin that leads to the gallows. He's probably the worse villain.
Metaphor Alert!
Democrats are trying to lead us all around by the Hogg.
Somehow the timid adults in the room cannot understand how seeing your fellow students gunned down by an AR-15 can make one fearless
Hogg isn't fearless....he fears guns...enough to want to take them away from others.
He also scared to participate in a fair debate with other students who attended his school and disagree with him.
The leaving kids alone rule has to do with kids who are not by choice in the public eye, sons and daughters of famous people and such. I don't know when the idea started that kids seeking publicity are specially protected from criticism.
- it's politically expedient to see them as saints! -
But they aren't saints, you know. Emma Gonzalez has publicly admitted to bullying Nikolas Cruz starting in middle school. But it's not her fault that he snapped -- it's never her fault.
Can we please stop using the word "child" when we are referring to young adults or teens? Hogg is acting as an adult, even if his arguments are childish. Arguing with him, discussing issues with him, pointing out his thinking errors are ways to help him stop arguing like a child.
There’s nothing wrong with criticizing children when warranted, mocking and belittling are another thing. It’s obvious that’s exactly what Ingraham was doing and as a public figure she paid the price for doing so. It’s about time too. Bullying by adults toward children isn’t any more acceptable (shouldn’t they know better by adulthood?) than bullying by children to each other. Is anyone surprised or upset that teens close to adult age would defend themselves from an attack by an adult? What Hogg did was serve Ingraham notice that her attempts at silencing and bullying have repercussions. He taught an adult, Ingraham, that there are consequences for bad behavior. Who was the child and who was the adult in this situation?
Ann Althouse said...
"Ah, mockturtle beat me to it!"
Ahem. The point is made in the post!"
AHEM, I made the point in a comment on yesterday's post, and I think others did too.
"It was an unspeakable evil, one that had been practiced for hundreds of years. Yet, short of taking the kids from their parents at birth and sterilizing the adults, how can the practice be eradicated?"
Hang the adults.
Hogg only speaks for himself. And the adults who groomed and manipulate him.
Blogger Scott said...
"What's wrong with criticizing children?"
"Using children as political sock puppets is repugnant."
The just end (confiscation of guns) justifies the offensive means (using children as political sock puppets) in the progressive worldview.
An unjust end (defending gun ownership) is not grounds for criticizing a "child" (outspoken and politicized high school senior?).
Laura Ingraham had nothing for which to apologize.
Is anyone surprised or upset that teens close to adult age would defend themselves from an attack by an adult?
Ho got exactly what he wanted: a hook to extend his victim status. Don't pretend he's actually a victim.
I'll just chime in with, I hate those commercials where they film adults but use the voices of children. I find it creepy and it offends me somehow. OTOH I don't mind when they use adult voices to make babies say stuff. That's FUNNY!
"Super-predator" was a word used to explain, and to try to find a way to rein in, overwhelming black criminality without blaming ALL Blacks, MOST Blacks, or Blacks IN GENERAL. The problem, the idea went, was not in Black culture, but only in a small minority of Blacks who disproportionately committed serious crimes, hence the term "super-predator".
Now Blacks and SJWs are pretending just the opposite; that it meant that Blacks were by nature "super-predators", worse individually and severally than all other races when it came to crime, and they have no interest in reducing Black crime. It's much the way that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" went from being an important step in including gays in the military and society, to a shameful infringement on their rights.
Blacks and leftists are wrong about the word "super-predator", and many of them know it, but right about their level of violent criminality.
How enlightened is it to deprive a Young Adult of his Moral Agency ?
The more Hogg speaks the more I think he was the bully that pushed and belittled the shooter. That's the behavior he's shown us every day since. Same with bald girl. She talks like a bully and admits being mean to the shooter.
But it's my fault cause I own a gun.
They know nothing about the non-govt world aka the real world. They will pursue the same life track as Obama...the non-profit, NGO, govt jobs track so they will still know nothing about the real world when they are 40 years old.
Human Shields
When did criticism become bullying? Are you be a bully if you are less than polite or mean to a person a single time? Or will bully become the new racist? or half as bad as a racist bully
There’s nothing wrong with criticizing children when warranted, mocking and belittling are another thing. It’s obvious that’s exactly what Ingraham was doing and as a public figure she paid the price for doing so....
Inga, with all due respect, Ingrahm's mocking was NOT of his failing to get into UCLA (and three other schools). She mocked his whining about in public, and she did so about as mildly as possible. Should she have done so? No, I don't think so.
Not because Hogg is a child but because he deserves far less attention than he's receiving. He's made himself a public figure and has profanely criticized, mocked, and belittled others. As RV pointed out above, he's "almost eighteen years old-- eligible to join the service, vote, buy guns and have his own opinion." He doesn't deserve a pass from a mild "quit whining about not getting into UCLA when your scores weren't good enough" after all he's said and done the last few weeks.
I'll make it shorter: Your side has been calling conservatives murders for the past month or more. You've been shouting that we have blood on our hands if we're members of the NRA. You've forfeited any right to come here and play the "Have you no decency?" card. You simply cannot go that far out of bounds in civil discourse and then expect the other side to stay within bounds. It doesn't work that way. It's never worked that way.
Children should be seen and not heard.
I'm sure that many, if not most, of the young Parkland activists believe in what they are saying, even if they came to those beliefs only recently, as a result of the shooting.
However, it is clear that they are being used as part of a well planned, well thought-out media campaign.
I serve on the boards of several charitable organizations (the kind that most people think of as "charitable," like helping sick kids and stuff like that), so I end up getting a lot of mail from activist groups and from groups that "service" non-profits. Many of these mailing assume that I am on-board with "the struggle," whatever "the struggle" may be.
After the last Presidential election, and especially after the "Women's March" and the "March for Science," I noticed that a lot of the mailings became much more focused on planning activities to capitalize on news events. I usually delete these things as they arrive, but at least a couple were along the lines of "Do you have an action plan for the next mass shooting tragedy? Here are the top 5 steps for getting your organization ready to act!" In other words, this campaign was ready to go, long before the Parkland shooting. I'll start saving these as they land in my mailbox.
(I'm convinced that one of the reasons the Left hates the NRA so much is that the NRA is the only non-leftist group that has critical mass and that organizes its constituents as passionately as leftist activists do with their constituents.)
Hogg is fair game now, and not a child by any definition I am aware of. From what I have witnessed of him, he isn't going to last long in the public eye- he is far too thin skinned.
“Not because Hogg is a child but because he deserves far less attention than he's receiving.”
Why? Is it because of the anti NRA rhetoric and the anti gun culture message? Why should people be silent about this?
The clip in which Gonzalez says Cruz was ostracized is edited to remove context. She was saying that students were staying away or shunning him because he was acting so crazy, and they were reporting his behavior to responsible people, who failed to do their jobs. The message of the clip should be that more law is futile because government will pick and choose what it enforces, not that the shooter was bullied by those who are in the spotlight right now.
“Hogg is fair game now, and not a child by any definition I am aware of.”
I agree, however he’s not going to be a pushover and has proven he’ll fight back. Good for him.
[he deserves far less attention than he's receiving.]
Why? Is it because of the anti NRA rhetoric and the anti gun culture message?
Because he has said nothing interesting or insightful, he's just repeating the left's general hatred and nastiness.
“Because he has said nothing interesting or insightful, he's just repeating the left's general hatred and nastiness.”
Millions of people disagree. But you’re entitled to your opinion...and so is he.
Inga, there is a difference between "fighting back" and complaining about criticism. He won't win any converts with the latter. The Ingraham incident actually makes Hogg look worse than she did with anyone not already vehemently anti-gun because it showed what a thin skin he has. Even telling us about his college rejections shows what kind of character he has- it clearly annoyed him that he was rejected by any of them, which Ingraham and others immediately recognized. Ingraham's only mistake was punching down at someone well beneath her in status, and she eventually realized that and apologized appropriately, even though Hogg doesn't deserve an apology.
Hogg is tone deaf, and it will be his undoing.
Millions of people disagree.
I'm aware of none who disagree since essentially no one has publicly opined on this circumstance. Do you have a link demonstrating this? Or are you just saying whatever you wish were true without regard to fact?
@ Mike
The more Hogg speaks the more I think he was the bully that pushed and belittled the shooter. That's the behavior he's shown us every day since. Same with bald girl. She talks like a bully and admits being mean to the shooter.
But it's my fault cause I own a gun.
I do too. I think Hogg bullied the shooter.
"If we give immunity from criticism to children — such as David Hogg, et al. — then adults will rely on children to do what adults want done"
But that's exactly what HAMAS does in its constant provocations with Israel. Children, schools, ambulances, hospitals are outfitted with explosives, and the Muslims taunt Israel.
Why? Is it because of the anti NRA rhetoric and the anti gun culture mess...?
No, because when he isn't exposing his ignorance he is contradicting himself. You cannot square his many (often profane) statements with reality. He blames "elected people" except for the elected Sheriff at BCSO. He uses the classic liberal call for more government (gun control) without acknowledging that the government in place (school, city, county, state and fed) ALL failed to act on the many red flags. He will not acknowledge this because he is mono-maniacally focused on guns and (as a surrogate) the NRA.
So though he is young and could be fresh instead his ideas are old and stale and reflect the adults around him more than his own, IMO. That is why he should be deplatformed.
Media won't go there. Little diaper on/diaper off boy has the leftwing talking points down and he can hide behind his diaper on.
How liberals treat children they disagree with...
https://www.theblaze.com/news/2011/04/18/fung-brat-protester-screams-profanity-at-14-year-old-tea-party-speaker
"The leaving kids alone rule has to do with kids who are not by choice in the public eye, sons and daughters of famous people and such. I don't know when the idea started that kids seeking publicity are specially protected from criticism."
I strongly agree.
I have had the experience in real life of people who take strong, aggressive, verbal shots at me and then when I respond switch to whining about how fragile they are, like I'm an outrageous bully. They want to hit and then cry, no fair hitting. These are adults. With a child, I would normally simply resist getting into a serious discussion that required me to be attacked but respond only with caring support. But when a young person goes into the public arena and is making progress moving the political dialogue, aimed at changing the law that will limit all of us, it's just irresponsible to shut up and let him dominate the discourse.
And the alternative of letting the young person speak and saying nothing is not really granting him respect. You could just treat him like a cute sideshow, wait for him to finish, and get on with the adult business. But that is not what is happening here.
And please note that I have no position on gun control. Whether it's good policy or not has never been an issue of mine. I am only talking about what I am openly talking about -- freedom of speech, journalism, the use of children in politics, law -- and I have no hidden agenda about what should be done about guns and gun violence.
My favorite part of the Children's Crusade last weekend was the overgrown children George Cloony and Cher arriving via armed Humvees and guarded by men with weapons so they could spew their disarmament nonsense about the rest of America knowing their goddamn place and shutting up.
Yeah that was the best part. Hogg is just a stupid sideshow about to clock out after his 15 minutes are up.
“Inga, there is a difference between "fighting back" and complaining about criticism. He won't win any converts with the latter.”
I don’t think he trying to win over converts. Most of us on the left already understand that the vast majorityof the right are so deeply entrenched, that dissuading them of anything is futile. This is something I think so many of you on the right don’t understand yet. I think that the message Hogg and the other young people and many not so young people on the left have been saying is that we on the left need to become engaged, we need to be less complacent, and yes is the young leading the older generation here, not the older generation manipulating these young people. They’ve displayed that they have the energy, the will and now, the voice to keep the gun issue and the NRA’s manipulation of the right in the forefront. This issue is just one of several that will motivate many independents and many more of the left to come out and vote, to become engaged in the fight
From Inga:
I don’t think he trying to win over converts.
Oh, he is trying, but you do seem to recognize that he won't. This is called preaching to the choir, and it isn't effective.
Here is the problem- if all he does is fire up his base, he also fires up his opposition equally if he is effective in the former in any way.
not the older generation manipulating these young people
Wrong. Organized by Mike Bloomberg's "Anytown" which is really one town, NYC. And his partners are four UCLA faculty (kinda makes you wonder why Hogg couldn't get in there) and is HQ in the San Fernando Valley. Not FLA. Not the kids. A bunch of veteral adult activists who already run anti-gun groups are organizing, financing, managing the logistics and booking for these dancing monkeys you admire so much. It's nothing new. It's what the Left has always done. It's what other hideous cultures like the Palestinians do.
It's your side and they even fooled you.
veteral = veteran
You could just treat him like a cute sideshow, wait for him to finish, and get on with the adult business. But that is not what is happening here.
I think that's exactly what's happening here. The left wing activist movement is a sideshow. People don't care about the marches and nonsense, they don't even care about ancillary issues like background checks. The issue is banning guns and the activists have no chance of success. Further they know they have no chance of success which is why they spend all their time denying their true goal.
Inga said ... "Why should people be silent about this?"
If they have nothing to offer but platitudes, headline quotes and leftist talking points fed to them by pros, they should have the common decency to shut up.
I also predict his uselessness to the cause, and probable counter-production leads to him being cut off within a couple of months left, again, to his own youtube channel and the occasional invite to a talk show that peters out completely within the year.
Hogg is so obnoxious that he probably serves his opposition better than his own party. That you can't see that isn't surprising to me, though.
Why can the left keep giving $500,000,000 a year of OUR government money to Planned Parenthood with GOP running Congress? Can't we spare maybe $100,000,000 for the NRA (a civil rights organization) and then give the $400,000,000 left over to local free medical clinics that don't do abortions?
Where's Chuck?
“If they have nothing to offer but platitudes, headline quotes and leftist talking points fed to them by pros, they should have the common decency to shut up.”
So why do you still speak?
Inga said ... "Why should people be silent about this?"
The issue wasn't whether people should be silent but rather why should we pay attention. Note how the seemingly slight change makes all the difference. This is how strawmen are built.
"The more Hogg speaks the more I think he was the bully that pushed and belittled the shooter. That's the behavior he's shown us every day since. Same with bald girl. She talks like a bully and admits being mean to the shooter. "
certainly would explain why they are so passionate about blaming others
Inga quipped: "So why do you still speak?"
Thanks for making my point.
Perhaps Inga, Ritmo, and the like can explain why the Left does this much more frequently and instinctively than the rest of us.
Because using other people to do their dirty work comes naturally to totalitarians. That's why.
The bigger picture is the strategic purpose behind this campaign.
This was, as stated in many places, a campaign that was pre-planned and primed to go whenever a new atrocity occurred, which was compatible with the preparations.
Its interesting to consider why this was not done, the trigger not pulled, on the Las Vegas massacre.
Its also interesting that the financial elite of the US has been hammering this point so consistently, for decades, going back to the 1960's. There are few "issues" so perennial as this one, and few quite as well financed, nor many as uniformly backed by the elite.
There is a reason here, and not the simplistic one of rousing Democrats for the 2018 elections.
“The issue wasn't whether people should be silent but rather why should we pay attention.”
Please don’t pay attention, that’s fine. The people that will be motivated to “vote them out” are paying attention. Remember Althouse’s admonition of a couple of days ago? “Pay attention”. We on the left and left leaning independents are indeed paying attention. Whether you folks pay attention is neither here nor there, doesn’t matter. You’re not their target audience
The only mistake Ingraham made was apologizing to the little shit. And the subsequent responses by Hogg and his fellow thugs proves it.
Never apologize to the left.
Ever.
Inga
You wrote the phrase "the NRA’s manipulation of the right " which illustrates your misunderstanding of the NRA and of the right. It is manipulated by the right, not the other way around. It is an organization that represents the views of its members and supporters and would cease to exist if it did otherwise. If it were to disappear tomorrow its members and supporters would create a new entity. This misunderstanding is at the heart of the far left's obsession with the NRA.
“Because using other people to do their dirty work comes naturally to totalitarians.”
What the dimmer bulbs among you don’t understand is that these young people are part of the left, they are not “other people”. They are a new and engaged voting block and we welcome them with open arms. Young people are trending left more and more as the years go by. Ask yourselves why.
"Most of us on the left already understand that the vast majorityof the right are so deeply entrenched, that dissuading them of anything is futile."
Right. That is why the Left no longer bothers to come up with rational arguments and simply bullies, ridicules,and forces people to do what they decree. Wannabe dictators don't dissuade. They outlaw and ban and persecute.
So long as Inga and Hogg promise to try to confiscate guns - personally, with their own hands - from their fellow citizens after the laws Inga and Hogg prefer are passed, I see no reason not to let them have it.
"In the drug trade, having underage persons do the dirty work of transport and distribution, this is called employing mules. Or so I'm told."
nope anyone who transports illegal drugs is referred to as a mule. Gangs typically use underage individuals aka children under 18 because they don't go to jail and are usually let go
The idea that young people are trending into the Leftist Collectivist camp is not based on survey data. It's the sort of lie a person on the wrong side of history tells herself.
“You wrote the phrase "the NRA’s manipulation of the right " which illustrates your misunderstanding of the NRA and of the right. It is manipulated by the right, not the other way around.”
Sure, keep telling yourselves that. I don’t care. What the left understands is that their vote is more powerful than ever.
"Most of us on the left already understand that the vast majorityof the right are so deeply entrenched, that dissuading them of anything is futile."
How would you know? The left's response to anything this disagree with is to yell shut up, and either start breaking shit or run for their safe spaces.
Where’s your data Birkel?
“The idea that young people are trending into the Leftist Collectivist camp is not based on survey data. It's the sort of lie a person on the wrong side of history tells herself.”
“NEW YORK (AP) — A majority of young people believe President Donald Trump is racist, dishonest and “mentally unfit” for office, according to a new survey that finds the nation’s youngest potential voters are more concerned about the Republican’s performance in the White House than older Americans.
The poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and MTV found that just 33 percent of Americans between the ages of 15 and 34 approve of Trump’s job performance.
That’s 9 points lower than all adults, who were asked the same question on a separate AP-NORC survey taken this month.”
"If we give immunity from criticism to children — such as David Hogg, et al. — then adults will rely on children to do what adults want done."
That's a great quote. A quotable quote. Kudos, Althouse.
Ah, yes, those highly accurate and "scientific" polls.
Trump has no chance to win, according to polls.
Francisco D said...
If they have nothing to offer but platitudes, headline quotes and leftist talking points fed to them by pros, they should have the common decency to shut up.
You should probably start your own blog if you want to tell people what to say and how they should to say it.
“Not because Hogg is a child but because he deserves far less attention than he's receiving.”
Why? Is it because of the anti NRA rhetoric and the anti gun culture message? Why should people be silent about this?
Hogg should be getting less attention than he is receiving simply because he has very little to say. He's not thought deeply about the issues and, other than emotion and profanity, has very little to add to the conversation. Would he be getting ANY attention were it not for his status as a survivor? No. Which suggests that the quality of his thinking merits very little attention.
How would you know? The left's response to anything this disagree with is to yell shut up, and either start breaking shit or run for their safe spaces.
3/30/18, 12:55 PM
Yep. When is the last time Leftists actually listened to a conservative speaker on campus?
Leftist SJW: RACIST! SEXIST! HOMOPHOBE! HATER!
Inga: You right-wingers are so intolerant!
Laughable.
“Millennials remain the most liberal and Democratic of the adult generations. They continue to be the most likely to identify with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic. In addition, far more Millennials than those in older generational cohorts favor the Democratic candidate in November’s midterm congressional elections.
In fact, in an early test of midterm voting preferences (in January), 62% of Millennial registered voters said they preferred a Democratic candidate for Congress in their district this fall, which is higher than the shares of Millennials expressing support for the Democratic candidate in any midterm dating back to 2006, based on surveys conducted in midterm years.”
Pew Research Center
Why are immature skulls full of mush on the left? Same reason they won't book a flight to Venezuela.
What the dimmer bulbs among you don’t understand is that these young people are part of the left,
What? Our position is precisely that they are a tool of the Left!
they are not “other people”. They are a new and engaged voting block and we welcome them with open arms.
The Left says this every ten years or so.
Young people are trending left more and more as the years go by.
No they're not. Young people have always trended Left.
Ask yourselves why.
When you're young and stupid, you're young and stupid.
“Using children as political sock puppets is repugnant. The "March for our Lives" protest was lavishly funded and organized by Michael Bloomberg anti-gun front organizations and self-styled "progressive" groups, who were very careful to stay in the background and make it look like this was some spontaneous uprising of children. The studied incuriosity of the media about who was running things was disgusting.”
Apparently only about 10% of those at the march in DC were under 18, and the average age of the other 90% was 49. Which says to me that a lot of them were probably aging hippies who are using their Social Security to go around the country to protests.
Fernandistein said: "You should probably start your own blog if you want to tell people what to say and how they should to say it."
I have no interest in telling you what to say. it's clear that your comprehension is superficial and you do not understand what I am telling you.
I am merely offering advice. You can remain silent and people may think you a fool. When you (figuratively) open your mouth, you remove all doubt.
(I cannot remember who I paraphrased that from).
Remember he is almost eighteen years old-- eligible to join the service, vote, buy guns and have his own opinion.
And they want to take one of those things away from all other 18-year-olds.
By "manipulation" Inga means the NRA spends their member's money endorsing candidates who promise to uphold the constitution as written and interpreted. This is about $5 million per year. By contrast the largest liberal groups spend billions of dollars lobbying and advertising. Why does the NRA buck go so far in your fevered mind?
Top Ten Groups Lobbying Congress
(Q1 spend annualized)
U.S. Chamber of Commerce* – $88M
American Medical Association – $24.8M
Boeing – $18M
General Electric – $16.9M
National Association of Realtors – $16.3M
Business Roundtable – $12.8M
National Association of Manufacturers – $9.6M
Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America – $9.6M
American Hospital Association – $9.5M
Google – $9.22M
“Apparently only about 10% of those at the march in DC were under 18, and the average age of the other 90% was 49. Which says to me that a lot of them were probably aging hippies who are using their Social Security to go around the country to protests.”
Another huge mistake you folks make is misunderstanding what sort of people are on the left. You seem to believe that most leftists are not working class and married with children. Your worn out notions of who compromises the left is going to hurt you when you least expect it, think November 2018 and 2020.
Labor spent $100M to elect Hillary. Still not as powerful as the NRA according to Inga.
CNN acolyte/hostess to Hogg this morning: "What kind of dumbass colleges don't want YOU??"
Hopefully there won't be an epidemic of school shootings creating an epidemic of child political spokespersons.
Fagin had quite an operation going, did he not?
William beat me to it! ;-)
“I have no interest in telling you what to say. it's clear that your comprehension is superficial and you do not understand what I am telling you.”
After he tells people to “shut up”. Is this in the least bit normal, especially coming from someone who touts his psychology expertise? Maybe for laughable dolts, pretenders and obsessive jerks like him.
What I find interesting is you people are paying attention to this noise. And spare me the hackneyed "the very existence of the republic depends on my having a hissyfit."
Tides Foundation takes in $250M per year. More than the NRA. What are they lobbying for? What's their message to Congress?
I don’t think he trying to win over converts. Most of us on the left already understand that the vast majorityof the right are so deeply entrenched, that dissuading them of anything is futile. This is something I think so many of you on the right don’t understand yet. I think that the message Hogg and the other young people and many not so young people on the left have been saying is that we on the left need to become engaged, we need to be less complacent, and yes is the young leading the older generation here, not the older generation manipulating these young people. They’ve displayed that they have the energy, the will and now, the voice to keep the gun issue and the NRA’s manipulation of the right in the forefront. This issue is just one of several that will motivate many independents and many more of the left to come out and vote, to become engaged in the fight
Inga -- This is truly scary stuff. What's the end game? Your side doesn't plan on persuading gun owners that they're wrong, you're simply going to -- do what? -- once you have power? There are tens of millions of AR-15s legally owned in the USA. A few thousand are sold each year. Banning their sale won't do anything in terms of access to these weapons. If they're so dangerous, don't you need to ban their ownership, too? Isn't this what's meant by all the praise your side has been giving Australia-style common sense gun control?
So, let's assume you have control of Congress and the Presidency and you ban assault weapons and half of them are turned in. (Most would think half would be a high estimate.) What happens next? That's why I say what you said was truly scary stuff. You're on the road to civil war. You may not know it, but you are. Many gun owners will not surrender their arms willingly. They know how to use them. And, they will believe that they are in the right. That's a prescription for a disaster if the government tries to take their guns.
Yet, if the government doesn't try, what then? If you think Prohibition was bad, you'll love gun control!
Part of the incoherence of contemporary public debate. Children are sophisticated enough to be fully trustworthy on a wide variety of vital topics but not sophisticated enough to be critiqued.
Which really makes children into propaganda, but of course only if they have the right sorts of opinions are the unimpeachable.
Children who talk about their religious beliefs have likely been brainwashed and will grow out of it.
Children who talk about their gender beliefs must be absolutely affirmed.
When you're young and stupid, you're young and stupid.
3/30/18, 1:01 PM
Indeed. And why an old lady believes that young leftists have special wisdom they should be sharing with us all is beyond me. When I was 17 I thought Jimmy Carter was great and that there might be something to astrology. When I grew older, I put away such childish notions. Young people are idealistic, but also lacking in life experience. They don't know much about either history or human nature. That's why it's common to hear the elderly say of their youth: "If only I knew then what I do now."
Well, unless you never grow, never examine your own beliefs and smugly assume you are always right and always were right. I can see why such an old person thinks youth confers some sort of moral authority.
What the dimmer bulbs among you don’t understand
Thanks for the laugh.
And another thing. Hogg has been quoted as saying that the adults are too stupid to figure out how to use an iPhone. One wonders who he thinks invented them. Teenagers ?
"They’ve displayed that they have the energy, the will and now, the voice to keep the gun issue and the NRA’s manipulation of the right in the forefront"
"The morning will come when the world is mine!
Tomorrow belongs to me!"
Is Godwin's Law operative when people really do sound like Nazis? (BTW, Nazism was tremendously popular on German university campuses. Because nobody is wiser than young people and their noble professors.)
Also, here's a scientific reason for why teenagers can be critiqued.
Indeed, if teenagers knew everything about life, why do we have high schools at all? They should be teaching, and the teachers should be listening. I'm not even sure why Hogg applied for college, where professors might actually dare to "grade" his work. Outrageous!
The very nature of education assumes that students not only don't know everything, but don't even know what they don't know.
Unless it has a political purpose, then they're beyond reproach.
“Only I can fix it!”
Donald Trump
Exiled reminds us:
"The morning will come when the world is mine!
Tomorrow belongs to me!"
Tomorrow Belongs to Me
Over on Instapundit Glenn Reynolds had the headline "The Weaponization of Emotion." It links to an article that is not about the aptly-named Hogg and his sister (mirable dictu!) but it certainly summarizes the fallout from Parkland. There is no investigation of why healthcare professionals examined Nikolas Cruz and wrongly concluded that he was no threat to himself or to others. There is no investigation of why the FBI -- twice warned that an individual named Nikolas Cruz was expressing a desire to be a school shooter -- did nothing. No investigation of the Coward County Sheriff's Office, which made numerous trips to Cruz's house but never initiated the steps to confiscate his guns. For that matter no punishment for the deputies who set up a perimeter instead of entering the school, in defiance of all the standard protocols for responding to a school shooting.
Instead we have young David Hogg screaming at me that I have blood on my hands for belonging to the NRA, and dingbats like Inga, ARM, Toothless, and Matt telling me that "attention must be paid" to the young pissant nitwit.
“Only I can fix it!”
Donald Trump
He's right about that. If he can't, there's no one else willing to do the hard work.
From Paddy O's link:
"Adults think with the prefrontal cortex, the brain’s rational part. This is the part of the brain that responds to situations with good judgment and an awareness of long-term consequences. Teens process information with the amygdala. This is the emotional part."
Replace the word "teens" with the word "liberals" and you have a good succinct summary of today's politics.
“What I find interesting is you people are paying attention to this noise. And spare me the hackneyed "the very existence of the republic depends on my having a hissyfit."”
I see this happening on Fox news on a nightly basis. If Fox News and right wing media wouldn’t have overreacted so vociferously against these young people, maybe they wouldn’t still be so threatening to rightists. I see the hysteria coming from the right.
“Inga, ARM, Toothless, and Matt telling me that "attention must be paid" to the young pissant nitwit.”
Not I . Please don’t pay attention.
At the beginning David Hogg stated he wouldn't go back to school in one of his first interviews, until there was justice for the murdered victims. So why are college acceptances even a topic for him? I guess he is talking about his rejections, so he can get a full-time lobbyist / activist gig.
Anyways don't forget the victims here
Alyssa Alhadeff
Scott Beigel
Martin Anguiano
Nicholas Dworet
Aaron Feis
Jaime Guttenberg
Christopher Hixon
Luke Hoyer
Cara Loughran
Gina Montalto
Joaquin Oliver
Alaina Petty
Meadow Pollack
Helena Ramsay
Alexander Schachter
Carmen Schentrup
Peter Wang
The problem is that Laura decided to apologize. You never apologize to social justice warriors because it is never accepted. It is never enough.
To fully understand the proper approach you need to read the great author Vox Day's book
"SJW Always Lie" which is a handbook for these events and how to handle them.
An excellent analysis can be found here in his excellent blog Vox Popoli where you can get a full flavor of what we in the alt-right think about current events.
David Hogg is a very unappealing arrogant individual. Imagine how far left and arrogant his parents must be.
Jim at said...
[Perhaps Inga, Ritmo, and the like can explain why the Left does this much more frequently and instinctively than the rest of us.]
Because using other people to do their dirty work comes naturally to totalitarians. That's why.
It's not natural. The far left is a two century old political movement. Over that time they've learned a lot about propaganda and how to maintain their political movement.
People on the right are largely interested in other things like family and work. Politics is a secondary interest at most. Those who drive the left live it, they define their positive self image through their political dedication. The impact is that while you spend your time trying to figure out how to make a living they spend theirs figuring out how to take it from you. Even if you are successful it helps them.
Even the people on the right who oppose them do so with only a fraction of their effort while the left has captured entire institutions to use against them. They do this easily because there is effectively no resistance. While right academics are interested in history or physics left academics are interested in controlling the institution's politics and using it to push their agenda on and off campus. Leftwingers are largely unchallenged since even those who disagree with them aren't motivated to oppose them. We're watching this happen now with big business. Google with the Damore debacle and Twitter hiring left wing activists to police "bullying" by which they mean saying anything the left disagrees with. Meanwhile the traditional right focuses on making money and building products. Of course the left will eventually control big business, there's no opposition.
The right are the Eloi.
I see the hysteria coming from the right.
Left wing hysterics believe this because they don't see claiming their opponents support child murder as hysterical, they think it's true.
I see this happening on Fox news on a nightly basis.
Inga watches Fox News on a nightly basis ! Who knew ?
People on the right are largely interested in other things like family and work. Politics is a secondary interest at most.
Understood. All of your post.
We see it every day. People on this very board demanding do know why I need certain things and how I should have to explain myself ... as if it's any of his or her damn business.
Controlling people is their entire existence, and if they can't do it themselves? They have other people do it for them. It's the ultimate in collectivism. And cowardice.
And the most apt comment I read a couple weeks ago regarding business and corporations: We on the right get upset when businesses push their politics onto us. Leftists get upset when businesses don't.
There is no way this ends peacefully. It never has.
Francisco D said..
I have no interest in telling you what to say.
You were telling somebody what to say, and how they should say it, but I didn't assume it was me.
it's clear that your comprehension is superficial and you do not understand what I am telling you.
You just said that you weren't telling me anything.
As for "headline quotes", like the few above this post made by various people, I think they're just fine and dandy; your pet-peeve about headlines isn't a problem for anyone but you. I've never heard anyone else complain about 'em.
Platitudes and "leftist talking points" are matters of opinion, of course, and if you think you have the right to tell people "they should ... shut up" for posting opinions that you don't like, you really should start your own blog, as I suggested, so you can exercise that right rather than impotently whining about it.
1) Hogg is not a child. He's 17 and engaging in public debate.
2) The Noor Salman verdict was correct. The FBI mismanaged that case from the beginning, lied about what she said, withheld evidence and I'm glad the jury saw through them.
My guess is that pushing Hogg and these kids will turn out to have been an incredible tactical blunder for the left. Yes, they are all excited, but what do they think the reaction is from the people at home? Do they think Trump voters are sitting at home watching Hogg and thinking, "He speaks for me."? They've pushed a spokesman who absolutely repels people who don't already strongly agree.
I'd be interested in seeing NRA membership numbers. I'd guess that they're up.
Rick said, "It's not natural. The far left is a two century old political movement. Over that time they've learned a lot about propaganda and how to maintain their political movement."
Even many non-leftists fail to appreciate the truth of this insight. The modern Left, birthed in the state-terror-supporting French Revolution, is essentially a counter-revolution against modernity's championing of individual sovereignty against the previous millennia-long dominance of tribalism. The current "us v. them" arrogance of the Left is merely the latest iteration of tribal fury against the audacity of individuals that proclaimed the unnecessity of the "village" of beloved of the Left (thanks, Hillary!). Their special animus against the US is because we are the only nation founded explicitly on the Scottish Enlightenment commitment to individual sovereignty over groupthink and tribal warlordism.
The thing most conservatives also miss is that victory of modernity over the Left's premodern counterrevolution is not guaranteed. We deplorable dimbulbs can never stop fighting back. The price of liberty is indeed eternal vigilance.
Three thoughts:
1) Concerned about how these kids are throwing themselves into the public sphere. They are high schoolers, with the judgement of such. May not understand the implications of putting themselves out there as public figures. They don't know how to act to control their image on the national stage. They are teenagers who are emotionally reactive. Aren't you glad you weren't on the national stage when you were a teenager? What dumb things did you say and do?
Jonah Goldberg is right -- they are, most likely, experiencing PTSD. Anger is not a surprising response to a situation. They are kids. High school teenagers conceptualize themselves as "kids," not as adults.
They expect adults to not fail them. The adults failed them horribly. Don't be shocked they are angry. Don't be surprised if traumatized teenagers who saw their friend's organs splattered on the floor are directing their anger in all sorts of ways., some of which are ill-advised.
Don't react with to teenage emotional volatility and provocation with your own emotional volatility. That's how teenagers act. Rule #1 in dealing with teenagers. You give into emotional volatility and a fight, you're playing on the terms of your teenager.
2) Yeah they want to be treated like little kids one second and adults the others: TYPICAL TEENAGERS. They are teenagers. Don't be surprised when they act like it.
2) Simple solution -- stop following his twitter feed. Don't get into a food fight with a high schooler.
I'd be interested in seeing NRA membership numbers. I'd guess that they're up.
3/30/18, 2:24 PM
Someone on Fox said membership has tripled since Parkland, but I haven't seen any hard evidence backing that up.
I know someone with absolutely no interest in gun ownership who joined after one dose too many of Attention Hogg. I would guess she's not the only person who has done that.
"Another huge mistake you folks make is misunderstanding what sort of people are on the left. "
And the lefts mistake is that you believe that.
I wish my 17 year-old self were available to debate Mr. Hogg. At 16, I joined the NRA and became active in the then raging gun control debate. I forget what had renewed the debate at the time, but it may have been the attempted assignations of Gerald Ford. Those in favor of gun control have not come up with a new argument in the intervening four decades. But, they've had far more articulate spokespersons than David Hogg.
The reason I'd like my 17 year-old self to be available to debate Hogg is because, even back then, I was much better versed in the pro-gun control arguments than he seems to be. We keep saying we need to have a 'conversation about gun violence'. It's hard to have one if the pro side won't articulate clearly what it wants, why it wants it, and how it plans to implement it its program. If I were to debate Hogg I would make sure the pro-gun control side got a fair hearing.
I don't believe, fairly understood, the pro-gun control positions hold water. But, in my own interest, I want the pro-gun control position to be properly understood so I can rationally show how their proposals would not work and would actually cause harm.
A good debate requires worthy opponents. Hogg is not such an opponent. Not even for my 17 year-old self. (But, then, I would have been admitted to UCLA, had I set my sights that low.)
Here's a leftist talking point:
NRA Is Pulling In Big Bucks After The Parkland Mass Shooting
"Donations skyrocketed as the gun group issued frothy warnings of the 'freedom-hating left.'"
Donations more than membership.
" While right academics are interested in history or physics left academics are interested in controlling the institution's politics and using it to push their agenda on and off campus."
Indeed - these days one sees that even empirical fields like engineering are under pressure to discount the value of data and problem-solving in order to make room for the agenda.
Its quite a widespread thing, if one keeps up with whats going on at schools of engineering.
“...they are all excited, but what do they think the reaction is from the people at home? Do they think Trump voters are sitting at home watching Hogg and thinking, "He speaks for me?”
No, we know he doesn’t speak for Trump voters. That’s pretty obvious. The “reaction from the people at home”...are the people at home only Trump voters? There are millions of people who vote Democratic and left leaning independents that are also “the people at home” and what these young people say resonates with us. Am I misunderstanding you when you reference “the people at home”?
but it may have been the attempted assignations of Gerald Ford.
He tried to cheat, but he'd always trip going into the motel.
I'd be interested in seeing NRA membership numbers. I'd guess that they're up.
I don't know what the actual numbers are, but I rejoined after an absence of close to 40 years. The CNN 'town hall' is what prompted my decision. Why did I allow my membership to lapse? I joined in high school and, after marriage, real life intervened. I've not hunted in years. Just haven't had the time.
But, the manifest unfairness of the town hall and hate on display for gun owners has brought my interest back. It's also awakened my wife's interest. She asked the other day if I would help her buy a carry gun for her purse. People like Inga have her worried she may not be able to get one when and if she feels like she needs one.
“People like Inga have her worried she may not be able to get one when and if she feels like she needs one.”
Why do people need an AR15? Why would I be threatening to anyone who wants to purchase a regular gun for self defense? Really, this makes absolutely no sense and sounds overblown, if not hysterical.
"Am I misunderstanding you when you reference “the people at home”?"
No, the people at home are the people who did not attend the marches.
As for Trump voters, since Trump was elected, it seems like winning over at least some of his voters is a necessary part of achieving political action.
So really, I should have said, "Yes," because you were misunderstanding me. My apologies for the even greater lack of clarity added by "No."
Why do people need an AR15? Why would I be threatening to anyone who wants to purchase a regular gun for self defense? Really, this makes absolutely no sense and sounds overblown, if not hysterical.
I keep asking whether you are lying to us, or lying to yourself. I've not seen an answer.
"There are millions of people who vote Democratic and left leaning independents that are also “the people at home” and what these young people say resonates with us. Am I misunderstanding you when you reference “the people at home”?"
What you have here is an irreconcilable cultural split. There are two populations here, at least, that have ever fewer intersecting interests. Indeed, many interests are now directly opposed, in a zero-sum manner. What one gains the other loses.
Heck, its nearly impossible to speak in such a way as to transmit even simple facts.
What you really need is a national divorce.
ga said...
“Because he has said nothing interesting or insightful, he's just repeating the left's general hatred and nastiness.”
Millions of people disagree. But you’re entitled to your opinion...and so is he.
Inga, I pray the Democrats run on Trump hatred and anti-gun rhetoric. We should be so lucky.
We just got back from the gun range. My nephew's son, who is 13, was shooting my AR 15. We had a lot of fun.
You should try it. :)
Hogs extortion scheme, didn't play well with arbys board of directors
“No, the people at home are the people who did not attend the marches.”
Yes, I was one of the millions of people at home who didn’t attend any of the marches and I was cheering on the people who did. I was happy to see the energy. Their message resonates with us and it’s been a long time in coming that it was given enough attention by people who vote Democratic and left leaning independents. It needs to be kept in our ( the left’s) attention. If the left wants to “vote them out”, and change the power the NRA wields, we need to keep our (the left’s) base engaged
I don't want to own an AR15, but I support the right of other people to do so. It's a semi-automatic, just like most hunting rifles are. It is a tool, which can be used for good or ill, just like a hammer or a chainsaw.
I not only support the right of others to own one, I will fight for their right to do so - because we gun owners know it won't stop with AR15's. When someone commits a mass shooting with a .45 there will be calls to ban those. The sort of firearm and the caliber have nothing to do with it. It's about controlling the masses. Concern about "the children" is just a facade.
What I was referring to:
http://dailycaller.com/2018/03/30/after-eviscerating-laura-ingrahams-advertisers-david-hogg-has-a-new-target-a-fast-food-chain
Not surprising since there were of 200,000 attendees only 10% school age children
Why do people need an AR15? Why would I be threatening to anyone who wants to purchase a regular gun for self defense? Really, this makes absolutely no sense and sounds overblown, if not hysterical.
An AR15 is a regular gun. So when you try to pretend you're only after them and not others everyone knows you're wither lying or an ignorant shill.
“An AR15 is a regular gun.”
Oh please. This is a nutty comment, or ignorant, or simply dishonest.
Why do people need an AR15?
And once again, you show your sheer, unbridled arrogance.
Who said you get to decide what people do and do not need?
Who gave you the authority to make such demands?
Nobody. Yet you somehow think you are afforded that power.
You aren't.
“Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,” the Stoner family told NBC News late Wednesday. "He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events."
First i was thinking that people don't like the name, AR-15; so maybe we could call them something else (especially since Armalite hasn't made them for years and years), maybe we could just call them Roscoe or something (maybe Igna).
but then i read in Ammotimes:"According to the news media, an AR 15 Rifle is any gun that someone uses in the act of doing something bad."
So i guess we're stuck with the name
"Yes, I was one of the millions of people at home who didn’t attend any of the marches and I was cheering on the people who did. I was happy to see the energy."
Right! But you already agreed with them. If the net result is to not only fail to change anyone's mind to their position but to repel formerly ambivalent people away into the opposite position, it seems like an incredible blunder, and I think that's precisely what it's done.
they also pointed out that AR15 type rifles (that is to say, Igna type rifles) are the most highest selling rifles in america: so BY DEFINITION they ARE regular rifles
Oh please. This is a nutty comment, or ignorant, or simply dishonest.
Your fantasy world is not the real world.
Nate Bethea served as an infantry officer in the US Army from 2007 to 2014, and during that time, he fired thousands of rounds from assault rifles. "These weapons are intended for the battlefield. I don’t want an assault rifle, because I don’t want to think of my home country as a battlefield," he writes in the New York Times. "I don’t want civilians to own assault rifles, because I think the risks outweigh the rewards. If people really do believe that they need them, maybe it’s because they see a battlefield where others don’t." He notes that he's seen the effects the weapons have, and he doesn't want to think the US is such a dangerous place that we need such weapons.
He quotes a friend, an Army Special Forces officer with multiple combat deployments: "People who say they need an AR for hunting or home defense often don’t understand the weapon’s ballistics or overpenetration. ARs cause horrific damage to humans; that’s why the military developed them. If you want to shoot an AR so bad, please feel free to join the fight against ISIS in the military." And, Bethea begs, please don't get hung up on the semantics. Yes, there are slight differences between assault weapons used by the military and the types of assault rifles civilians can buy, but the truth is, a civilian would be able to buy basically the same rifle Bethea carried in Afghanistan, and the same accessories, with little difficulty—and that's not right.”
http://www.newser.com/story/226831/former-soldier-civilians-shouldnt-own-assault-rifles.html
"Yes, I was one of the millions of people at home who didn’t attend any of the marches and I was cheering on the people who did. I was happy to see the energy."
Why is it more about the 'energy" that finding actually solutions to tragedy. It is all about you and how it makes you feel.
My older children noticed it at school as well, the students that literally do nothing when there is a service opportunity , get all hyped up over 'we are going to change the world' bit.
We can eliminate guns, and still have to deal with monsters like Nicholas Cruz. It's like saying let's ban marches, because it gives monsters like David Hogg a platform.
Yep, both are 'monsters'. One's a murderer and the other exploits murders for his own personal narcissism. Both creepy.
Why do people need an AR15?
To answer that question it helps to know a little more than you apparantly do about the AR15. The AR15 was developed and sold to consumers BEFORE it was even considered for adoption by the US military. (For the military, it was altered to be able to fire in full-auto. This version is the M-16.)
The AR15 was popular with the shooting public for several reasons: it was light, easy to shoot, had low-recoil, was accurate, and was relatively inexpensive. The cartridge it used, the .233 Remington, provides a flat trajectory over the 1st 200 yards and was relatively inexpensive. As a centerfire cartridge, it was a step up in power from .22 long rifle rimfire cartridges most teenagers learn to shoot with. (It's NOT a high power cartridge!) It really isn't adequate for large game hunting, but it is legal for deer hunting in many states. It is, however, a very good cartridge/rifle combination for hunting smaller game and for 'plinking'. (Plinking is shooting various targets at various ranges for fun. It's not serious target shooting. It's simply recreational shooting.)
Now, we come to the topic of home defense. All the reasons that make the M-16 variants an excellent choice for the military also make the AR15 a good choice for home defense. Would it be my first choice? No. I'm comfortable using a pistol. Many gun owners have never shot anything but a rifle. For them, an AR15 is likely a far better choice than forcing them to use a weapon they've only used occasionally at a range. One of my rifles is chambered in 30-06 (this, by comparison to the AR15, is a high-powered rifle). It is considerably longer than an AR15 and only has a scope for aiming. I'd much rather use an AR15 for home defense than my 30-06. It's shorter length would make it easier and quicker to use in close confines. My 30-06 is bolt-action, meaning that the AR15 would allow me a much quicker follow up shot.
And, if you lived next door, you'd rather I used an AR15 for home defense, too. The .223 Remington is far less likely to cause unintended injuries from over-penetration (going through walls and hitting someone on the other side) than a 30-06.
That's why and AR15.
Now, to you: Who are you to decide what I need? I'm an adult and know my situation a darn bit better than anyone else. I claim the right to make my own decisions about how to best fulfill my needs and will allow you the same privilege.
“Instead of sensibly prohibiting civilian use of assault weapons, they are still legal in most places and in the wake of the Las Vegas tragedy, you can still make one fire automatically with a “bump stock.” The fact that only semi-automatic, and not fully-automatic rifles are legal, isn’t the point. What is the point: a tool meant for combat situations is widely available in civil society for no apparent reason other than to let civilians feel like they are soldiers. So we wind up with men carrying a legally-purchased weapon of war. No, they are not designed exactly the same, but when the bullet leaves the barrel at subsonic speeds to shred bones and organs, the results are often the same.”
“Josh Manning was an enlisted intelligence analyst in the U.S. Army from 2002 through 2009. He deployed to Iraq twice.”
http://www.newsweek.com/guns-texas-shooting-ar-15-assault-rifles-church-26-dead-devin-kelley-mass-703160
Nate Bethea served as an infantry officer in the US Army from 2007 to 2014, and during that time, he fired thousands of rounds from assault rifles.
Assault rifle is not a meaningful category, it's a scare tactic. The only meaningful requirements are for it to be a rifle and hold multiple rounds. These features do not make the weapon a battlefield weapon.
"When someone commits a mass shooting with a .45 there will be calls to ban those."
There is, and were -
Charleston Church Shooting
And this was with 10-round capacity magazines, which would be even California-legal.
This case was far worse - 32 dead-
Virginia Tech Shooting
This was done with two pistols, one a very standard Glock 19 and the other a .22 pistol.
The notorious Columbine case was committed with shotguns, a low-capacity carbine and a very clumsy, though high capacity pistol (the infamous TEC-9). They could have done the same with entirely standard weapons.
And so on. This will continue with one sort of firearm or another for as long as it is fashionable. Its not about the weapon.
when the bullet leaves the barrel at subsonic speeds to shred bones and organs, the results are often the same.”
Below is a list of all guns this description would not include:
.
"These weapons are intended for the battlefield. I don’t want an assault rifle, because I don’t want to think of my home country as a battlefield,"
This is simply a refusal to look at the reality of the US at this time.
Yes, these are weapons of war. Why are people buying weapons of war?
Perhaps the other side should stop creating the conditions by which people are being driven to arm themselves for war?
But no, nobody goes there.
“I’m a Marine. I carried guns every day in Iraq, guns very similar to the ones used to perpetrate the Orlando murders and many other mass shootings in America. I’ve used guns in combat. On more than one occasion, guns have saved my life. But there’s a big difference between a U.S. Marine with a rifle and a civilian with a gun.
I trained for years in order to use my weapon properly. And long before I ever aimed it at an individual, I had to look at pictures of dead and mangled bodies in order to understand the magnitude of what it meant to pull that trigger.
So believe me when I tell you: There’s simply no reason for a civilian to own a military-style assault weapon. It’s no different than why we outlaw civilian ownership of rockets and landmines.
Thankfully, Congress has the ability and authority to eliminate the civilian sale of these weapons of war. We have before, and we should again.“
Rep, Seth Moulton
Igna(rant)... I don't like petty name calling but that amused me, so I am sharing it.
Inga,
Do you understand that the links you offered neither prove your point nor disprove mine? My guess is you don't.
“Chipper Jones loves guns. Loves ‘em. He says he’s got five, including a shotgun and a rifle. (Though he says he prefers hunting with a bow because “it’s safer and more sporty.”) But even Jones says regular American civilians have no business being able to own assault weapons, like the AR-15 used to murder 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School earlier this month.
“I believe in our Constitutional right to bear arms and protect ourselves,” Jones said. “But I do not believe there is any need for civilians to own assault rifles. I just don’t.
“I would like to see something (new legislation) happen. I liken it to drugs – you’re not going to get rid of all the guns. But AR-15s and AK-47s and all this kind of stuff – they belong in the hands of soldiers. Those belong in the hands of people who know how to operate them, and whose lives depend on them operating them. Not with civilians. I have no problem with hunting rifles and shotguns and pistols and what-not. But I’m totally against civilians having those kinds of automatic and semi-automatic weapons.””
https://deadspin.com/chipper-jones-says-theres-no-reason-for-civilians-to-ha-1823319335
So... tell me why YOU need an AR15.
I trained for years in order to use my weapon properly. And long before I ever aimed it at an individual, I had to look at pictures of dead and mangled bodies in order to understand the magnitude of what it meant to pull that trigger.
Apparently Inga doesn't understand that using a justification which applies to all guns shows everyone her desired ban isn't limited to AR15s as she pretends.
Inga -- The people you're quoting should know better. The AR15 and the cartridge is uses were NOT developed by the military. This is a historical fact. (As they say, you can look it up.) Does the .223 Remington "cause horrific damage to humans"? Maybe. This is a question of much debate. Some believe that the bullet will tumble inside leaving a jagged wound.
But, this is an academic question of little practical value because the type of ammunition used by the military (full-metal jacket) and non-military (soft-tipped) are vastly different. The kind used by ordinary gun owners is designed to expand upon impact -- causing a larger wound channel and a more humane kill. Here, any advantage a tumbling .223 Remington FMJ bullet might have had over a .30 caliber 30-06 FMJ goes away. The expanding AR15 bullet does more damage than does the military bullet and the expanding 30-06 bullet does more damage than either AR15 bullet.
“...her desired ban isn't limited to AR15s as she pretends.”
NRA promotes this sort of nuttery. That’s why they need to be defanged and they will be...eventually.
Of course, the media can dig up pro-gun control Marines, just like they can dig up the occasional military lefty. So what? They have SEALs and Marines on Fox all the time talking about the threat the gun-grabbers pose to our freedom. Why does a pro-gun control Marine's opinion carry more weight than the opinion of a pro-2nd Amendment (and far more typical) member of the military?
Based on my observations at the range and on conversations I've had (since we're using anecdotes and opinions rather than evidence), I'd say there is probably a pretty large overlap veterans and AR15 owners.
To be fair, an AR-15 is a very fine military weapon and was designed as such.
The full-auto version (and I have fired M-16's) is not really superior except for specific military tasks like suppressive fire, that are not always necessary or desirable in a guerrilla weapon, given likely problems with ammunition supply.
It is also excellent as a guerrilla weapon. Which is the 2nd Amendment point. On which everyone refuses to engage. Because the cloud of cowardice and dishonesty is thick.
The NRA is the representative organization of millions of voters.
The members are exercising free association.
They are exercising free speech.
They are exercising their right to petition the government for redress of grievances.
The Left is attack two Amendments with this rhetorical effort.
"It is also excellent as a guerrilla weapon. Which is the 2nd Amendment point. On which everyone refuses to engage. Because the cloud of cowardice and dishonesty is thick."
That's it exactly. The 2nd Amendment isn't about ensuring the right of people to hunt or target shoot.
There is a moral dimension to David Hogg’s celebrity, namely that he is standing on a pile of bodies of his murdered schoolmates—he would be nobody without their deaths but is claimimg attention because of them. In short, he is exploiting their deaths to promote himself. He has no role in this situation except as a bye-stander who has jumped on the bodies of the victims and started shouting. Aided by a sensation-seeking, agenda promoting press he has become famous, for whatever that is worth.
To young Mr. Hogg I say “You are a ghoul. Shut up, go home, and grow a conscience. After you have calmed down, think about how schools can be defended rather than targeted; then you might have something useful to add to the discussion.”
Inga -- I told you why I need an AR15. The fact Chipper Jones or some Marine doesn't want or need one doesn't enter into the equation. I own a pickup truck. Why? Because, at the time, I felt I needed one. The fact many other families do just fine without any car or truck at all does not make me question whether or not I was correct to buy my truck. Respond to MY reasons for owning an AR15. Telling me why someone else would prefer to own something else is a little like telling me that I shouldn't like rock and roll because so and so prefers jazz. It does nothing to advance your argument.
NRA promotes this sort of nuttery.
Apparently Inga believes the NRA owns logic, but it's revealing she thinks logic is nuts. If her objection justifies banning AR15s why wouldn't it justify banning other weapons?
That's Nuts!
"The AR15 and the cartridge is uses were NOT developed by the military."
They were designed by the Armalite corporation specifically for military purposes.
The original design in 7.62 was submitted to the same US Army competition that selected the M-14 as the US service rifle.
Well, the cartridge was slightly adapted from a civilian one, but it was intended for military use. So was, for that matter, the 7.62 service cartridge also (from the .300 Savage, a more substantial change).
But service rifles have always been released to civilian hands in the US. The M1 Carbine for instance, of Patty Hearst fame, of which millions were sold to civilians, was the most common service weapon of WWII.
AR-15s and the like are not unique. What is unique are the sheer numbers of the things. There are several times as many in civilian hands than all the US service small arms manufactured for WWII.
That is the outstanding question here. Nobody truly asks why.
“AR-15s and the like are not unique. What is unique are the sheer numbers of the things. There are several times as many in civilian hands than all the US service small arms manufactured for WWII.
That is the outstanding question here.”
Because it’s a fetish.
Chipper Jones is a retired MLB player who is certain to end up in the HOF. As such he is very wealthy and probably lives in a gated and very secure area. He also probably has bodyguards. I liked him as a player, but he is yet another cocooned celebrity, telling ordinary people leading very different lives what they should own and believe.
“It does nothing to advance your argument.”
I’m under no illusion that any minds will be changed. I’m expressing my opinion. People who belong to cults and who are fetishists are too firmly entrenched.
buwaya:
We do ask why. And everybody knows why. My challenge to the gun grabbers to kick down their neighbors guns and take the guns is implicitly stating the obvious: the guns exist to prevent the subjugation of citizens by their fellow citizens.
Have you ever noticed the Leftist Collectivist responses? They accuse me of threatening violence for wishing them speed on their preferred course. They understand how a raw pursuit of their ends would leave them vulnerable.
The Second Amendment was designed for precisely this purpose. It was a warning to the Brita and those who would suppose to rule. It won't come to bloodshed because one side understands how poorly they would fare if matters took such a turn.
“Why do people need an AR15? Why would I be threatening to anyone who wants to purchase a regular gun for self defense? Really, this makes absolutely no sense and sounds overblown, if not hysterical.”
Why would you “need” a car? Plenty of people don’t have them. Sure, if you live in Red America, they are quite handy. If you didn’t want one, you could always move somewhere, like NYC, that has a good subway system, and a lot of taxi cabs. And, notably, the right to own and drive a car is not a specifically enumerated right, as is the right to keep and bear arms.
One reason to “need” them though is that they are the semiautomatic version of the military M16, and, thus, should armed insurrection be necessary, the federal government wouldn’t as easily out gun the patriots who would be resisting them. Both sides would be comparably armed.
Why would you want an AR-15? Because they are better described as modern sporting rifles. They have incorporated the improvements made in firearms over the last 60-70 years. Anyone wanting us to give up our AR type firearms is essentially trying to limit us to 1950s era technology. From when Eisenhower was President. Before the Beatles, the Vietnam War, space flight. From a time when computers were housed in air conditioned rooms with glass walls, where the public could watch their operators wearing white lab coats operate their esoteric machines - that had far less cababilites than our smartphones do. That is the level of firearms technology that Inga and her ilk want us limited to.
Why do people love modern sporting firearms, such as AR-15s? Because they are lighter, able to survive more abuse, are easier to shoot, more accurate, more reliable, and have significantly less recoil. They are highly modular, which means that almost every part can be switched out fairly easily. This includes changing caliber, and make operation by different sized people easy. Instead of having to cut down the wooden stock, in order to accommodate smaller shooters, as used to be the case, adjustable stocks can be adjusted to different people in seconds. Changing sights and optics is typically almost as easy. Interestingly, the fact that AR-15 accessories, such as optics can be easily utilized on their military assault rifle and carbine equivalents means that these accessories can be stress tested in actual combat before most civilians buy them. And visa versa. The innovative back and forth between the military and civilian side are one big reason that these firearms have evolved so much in that time. This is what Inga and “Camera” Hogg want to deprive you of - access to modern firearms. Pretty much any firearm developed since Eisenhower was President.
Inga shows us that she can find a few former Marine politicians and would-be politicians.
My nephew is a Marine and he was very happy to see his son get the chance to shoot the AR 15 plus a Walter P 38 and a Winchester 30 30.
The 30-30 has a stronger recoil than the AR 15.
Inga knows what she reads in left wing sources.
The rest of us have experience about the things we discuss.
"Because it’s a fetish."
That is no answer. There is a reason for everything.
I suggest that it is an enormous reaction to insecurity as a result of breakdown of every sort of social institution. The timing is very telling.
To stop this, the only way is to restore a sense of security.
So stop doing what is creating insecurity.
Nobody wants to go there. BTW, Donald Trump is the only man who has substantially slowed down the near-exponential rise in gun sales (see FBI Background Checks 2016-2017). Perhaps you need to consider why, and if you are honestly looking for a solution, it lies in that direction.
"We do ask why. And everybody knows why."
No, "we" don't ask why. The problem is never put in those terms, in the MSM and very rarely even in "conservative" media. And never by politicians. Nor is the other side ever challenged on the question.
It is the unspoken subtext.
Message: Use your women, because their role will not be taken seriously.
Oh fer fuck's sake. The message is that federal prosecutors once again grossly overcharged a case and had their heads handed to them. Thank God we have a judicial system where ordinary people trump their rulers.
"Thank God we have a judicial system where ordinary people trump their rulers."
This has not been evident in the punishment through process which is so standard throughout the judicial system.
The FBi screwed that case up and the prosecution lost.
I wonder how many FBI agents and DoJ employees are shaking in their boots at the prospect of a Utah jury deciding if they go to jail.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा